Government has approved proposal for setting up of Indian National Defence University at Binola, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Aim of the University is to develop and propagate higher education in the field of Defence Studies, Defence Management, Defence Science & Technology and promote policy oriented research on all aspects relating to National Security and Strategy. Objectives of the University are as under:-
· To prepare officers from Armed Forces & officials of national security establishment from India & its friendly foreign countries for high level leadership, staff & policy responsibilities.
· To promote capacity building in competencies related to national security with a view to spawn national security leaders & managers to look at strategic security challenges holistically, enabling them to formulate policies based on research & informed inputs.
· To encourage the culture of strategic thinking in India especially the Armed Forces on defence & strategic issues & initiate debates on such like issues at national / global level.
· To instil a spirit of jointness amongst various elements of national security systems.
· To develop & promote higher education in Defence Studies, Defence Management & Defence Science & Technology.
· To promote policy oriented research related to national security, both internal & external.
· To create synergy between academic community & Government functionaries.
· To promote an awareness of national security issues beyond the officials of national security establishments.
· To serve as think tank contributing to policy formulation & debates on security & strategic issues.
· To network with other national, regional & international education / research institutions & think tanks with similar objects for greater value addition.
· To recognize educational programmes / training at constituent & affiliating autonomous institutions.
· To provide opportunities of higher education to Defence Services in technology.
· To provide higher education by distance learning mode to Armed Forces personnel.
· To promote interface between stakeholders of national security & defence industrial base for long-term strategic & defence needs.
· To provide corporate fellowship programme at board level in corporate sector.
· To institute international fellows programme.
Proposed course to be offered by the University to its stakeholders on the subjects related to Defence Strategic Studies, Defence Technology, Defence Management and Defence Science & Technology are as under:-
· Flagship / Postgraduate Program: The University will offer 1-year postgraduate course with 48 credits, supplemented by an additional module of research / project study leading to an appropriate Master’s degree.
· Doctoral Program: The University will offer 2 to 5 years Ph.D. course through which young scholars will be encouraged to acquire experience of teaching in Universities.
· Short term Modules / Certifications: The flagship programmes mentioned above will also be offered in the form of short term modules including skill development & re-settlement courses and other certifications.
· Customised Courses / Programmes: This will include courses / programmes with less than three months duration to be conducted under the constituent institutions for requirements projected by the Services / stakeholders.
· Distance Learning Programmes: Distance learning programmes have been catered for providing higher education to service personnel serving to remote areas who can’t be spared due to exigencies of service in the following three domains:-
o Security and Defence Studies.
o Defence Technology.
o Defence / Resource Management.
This information was given by Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar in a written reply to Smt Santosh Ahlawat in Lok Sabha today.
HH/RAJ (Release ID :112677)
(Source-PIB)
|
Friday, December 5, 2014
Military University
OROP - The endless discussion
Dear Veterans
Notwithstanding acceptance of OROP in principle by both the UPA and NDA Governments and allotment of funds as well, the comments by Mr A Jaitley and Mr M Parrikar and the answer to a question, raised recently in the Rajya Sabha, raise a doubt, if the intention of the present Government is to honor their commitment or to try to get away with another enhancement of pension for pre certain-cut-off-date veterans. Strangely, though quite a few of us are absolutely clear as to what OROP means in terms of quantum of pension to each veteran, there are more number of veterans who have just a vague idea of OROP concept and might be very happy with some enhancement; the enhancement may not even be decent enough.
2 Risking adverse criticism of boring the few well versed veterans, I make an attempt to spell out the issue. Mr Jaitley feels that the issue of OROP is complicated and needs a research by a tribunal. Mr Parrikar, fortunately, feels that it is just dynamic in the sense that the pension needs to be revised every year. Unfortunately, he seems to be unhappy about it. I do not know why. My question is “so what if it is dynamic; let it be revised every year, now that both the Governments have accepted the definition, in principle”. Mr Parrikar is wrong in his assumption that the pension needs to be revised every year. And equally wrong is Mr Jaitley in his assumption that OROP is complicated.
3. The method of calculations Let’s see what are the steps involved in the implementation of OROP
(a) Existing Pension Order indicates the rank of the veteran and the Qualifying Years of Service, on his retirement.
(b) It is a fact that veterans retiring during Jul 2015 to Dec 2015 stand to get the highest pension in comparison with those who retire earlier in the same rank and with same or more qualifying years of service.
(c) The decision has been taken to fix the pension of veterans initially at par with the maximum pension earned by the recently retired veteran as on Apr 01, 2014. The pension calculated as on that date would be lesser than the pension indicated in Para (b), above.
(d) Thus it warrants that the pension determined as on Apr 01, 2014 has to be suitably incremented as and when the higher pension is sanctioned for those veterans retiring subsequent to the date Apr 01, 2014, to honor the commitment of both the Governments to the definition of OROP.
(e) This does not mean that the pension needs to be revised every year. It only means that the pension sanctioned as on Apr 01, 2014 needs to be incremented on Jul 01, 2014 by an amount equal to 3% of the amount of the pension as on Apr 01, 2014 minus half the MSP entitlement to that rank, Jul 01, 2014 is the date when increment is granted to serving soldiers of any rank, thereby raising the pension higher than what was on Apr 01, 2014.
(f) Obviously similar increment has to be granted in the year 2015 as well. Further increment may not be necessary as 7CPC will recommend suitable policy on pension for the future from 01 Jan 2016 onwards.
4. Now, can anyone see any complication in the implementation or the necessity to carry out yearly revision? If the Accounts people see so, I am afraid that they do not deserve to manage our pension accounts. Some of us may be employed on contract basis, just for a couple of months. We may even opt to serve with no remunerations whatsoever.
5. What is the Administrative work?
(a) First, Government letter has to be issued to the effect that the Government has accepted to regulate the pension of all veterans as recommended by the Petition Committee and instruct the Pension authority to implement the pension provisions as per the definition.
(b) Second, Pension Authority needs to issue to circular stipulating the pension as on 01 Jan 2014.
(c) Third, Pension Authority must stipulate the maximum possible pension (as given in Para 2(b)) and corresponding minimum QYS applicable.
(d) Fourth, a clause for incrementing on Jul 01, 2014 and Jul 01, 2015 must be stipulated authorizing the PDA to carry out the incrementing without referring the matter to any or awaiting any instructions, subject to the condition that the maximum possible pension should not exceed the stipulated amount and the QYS must equal or more than the corresponding figure (Ref (c) above).
6. I have attached three files for those who would be interested in detailed analysis and efforts.
a. First a paper that covers comprehensively the concept of OROP (Not attached here)
b. Second a letter to PM explaining the simplicity of implementation of OROP
c. Third copy of letter to RM requesting him to rise up to the occasion and improve the concept of OROP by restoring the edge the three Chiefs enjoyed in their pension, to the extent possible. The least that can be done is to ensure that the pension of the three Chiefs is 33.33% more than the highest pension, payable to the civilian for all times to come. And link up the maximum permissible pension for all other ranks to the pension of the Chiefs, again for all time to come, so that there is no need for revision of pension as a independent exercise giving scope for adverse manipulations.
Maj Gen RN Radhakrishnan
(Source- India of my Dreams blog)
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Amarinder blames bureaucracy for delay in OROP; writes to PM - Unending wait for OROP
HT Correspondent , Hindustan Times Chandigarh, December 03, 2014
In a letter to the PM, Capt Amarinder wondered whether it was the bureaucracy or the parliament that was running the country. "I am intrigued over such a situation where the bureaucracy has been trying to overrule parliament. Is it the bureaucracy that is running this country or Parliament?" he asked.
He said, it was strange that despite the decision about OROP having been approved by the Parliament, no headway has been made so far as the vested interests in the bureaucracy are trying to scuttle it. The former chief minister wondered despite both the UPA and NDA in favour of the decision it was still not being implemented.
He pointed out, it was the previous UPA government which approved the OROP. "The then finance minister P Chidambaram allocated Rs. 500 crore for this purpose in his last budget as the exact figures had not been known at that time", he said, adding "the finance minister Arun Jaitely also approved about Rs. 1000 crore for this purpose in this year's budget".
The Congress leader also said that since then the total amount required for the implementation of the scheme has been worked out to be about Rs. 9500 crores, which is a pittance as compared to the expenditure incurred on other schemes like Food Security or MGNREGA which cost lakhs of crores of rupees.
"Despite that the ex-serviceman have not been able to get the benefit just because the bureaucracy do not want to pass on this benefit to them", he regretted. He said, he was surprised that the matter has been put on the back-burner for an amount of Rs. 9500 crores.
"Should this amount really matter for a country like India and that too when it concerns our 30 lakhs ex-servicemen dedicated their life to the country having served the nation in peace and war", he asked.
Unending wait for one rank, one pension
Lt Gen Harwant Singh (retd), Hindustan Times Chandigarh, December 04, 2014
The government’s dilly-dallying on the grant of One Rank One Pension (OROP) continues to agitate the veterans. Koshyari Committee of Parliament has defined what OROP is and recommended its implementation. Demand for OROP was first raised in mid-eighties and a hunger strike by veterans was undertaken at Red Fort. Thereafter, this demand has been raised at every forum, including the dharna at Jantar Mantar, and veterans returning thousands of their war medals to the President and collecting signatures in blood.
Defence forces have been persistently wronged by successive Central Pay Commissions (CPCs). Around 99.5% of the defence personnel retire before the age of 60: age at which all central government employees retire. Nearly 80% of IAS officers manage re-employment for five years and the more manipulative can get this extended up to as much as 20 years and more!
Early retirement
Soldiers retire at 35-37 years. Early retirement with inadequate monetary compensation shortens the life span of veterans. Life expectancy of civil employees (IARM report) is 77, of railway employees it is 78 while that of army officers it is 67, of junior commissioned officers 72 and in case of soldiers it is 59 to 64. Early retirement with much less pension, increasing family commitments and financial worries take their toll. Even though, at retirement, they are physically fitter than their counterparts in the civil.
Truncated careers, extremely limited and delayed promotions, hard living conditions in uncongenial environments, risk to life and limb, recognised the world over and termed as X factor and fully compensated, is simply overlooked in India.
Taking the existing pay, etc, and assuming there being no increase for the next two and a half decades for civil employees, a soldier retiring at 35-37 years would get approximately Rs. 37 lakh less compared to his equivalent in the civil, by the time both reach the age of 60: age at which a civil employee will retire. Thereafter, a civil employee gets much more pension than a soldier. In the case of officers, the financial loss due to early retirement and limited and delayed promotions and subsequently lesser pension, is far greater. When increases by subsequent CPC are taken into account, disparity for defence personnel increases exponentially.
The 6th CPC, with an IAS officer on it, (a permanent feature on every CPC) granted to IAS officers and all AIS (All India Services) and Group A services (nearly 4 dozen of them) what is called Non-Functional Up-gradation (NFU), a sort of ‘pay promotion’ unrelated to job content and performance parameters, etc, but the same was denied to defence services officers, thus consigning to the dustbin the traditional pay parity between the commissioned officers and the AIS.
NFU to AIS means that they can circumvent the pyramidal cadre structure and earn pay advancement right up to HAG level (additional secretary – Lt-Gen) without going through any selection process or availability of posts, etc. This in a nutshell resulted in all officers of these civil services rising one level below the apex (secretary) level. Whereas 99.5% armed forces officers (major generals and below) stagnate in Pay band 3 and 4. This largesse was to meet the aspirations of civil services. Apparently and by implication the denial of NFU to defence services officers meant that they have no aspirations! NFU is simply a plunder of the exchequer.
Change after mid-50s
Up to mid-fifties, a brigadier drew more pension than a chief secretary of a state and soldiers and others 75% of the last pay drawn as pension. A major-general drew more pension than secretary to the government of India. This was to compensate for early retirement and extremely limited and delayed promotions, beside the then acknowledged X factor.
The condition of 33 years’ service to earn full pension works only against defence services personnel because majority of them are compulsorily retired much before completing that length of service. Of the three career progression benefits available to all central service personnel, nearly 80% of defence personnel have to contend with just one, due to retirement, before second and third come into play.
Losing attraction
Military service has become so unattractive that few suitable candidates are coming forward to join the officer cadre. (The deficiency is around 12,000.) Same is the case of soldiers. From 2001 to 2004, 2,000 army officers applied for release from service, which included two lieutenant-generals, 10 major-generals, 84 brigadiers and the rest colonels and below. This is a glaring case of acute dissatisfaction in the service. How many from the civil services opt to leave!
Since the mid-fifties defence services have been relentlessly downgraded. Perhaps the bureaucracy has been frightening the political class, with the mirage of a military takeover and thereby creating a bias against the services.
The higher echelon in the defence services are not affected except for delayed promotions, so it has been a silent spectator to this onslaught on their officers. Policy of divide and rule of the government was first applied in the case of King Commissioned Officers (KCIOs) and the rest and later to higher echelon and the remaining officer corps of the defence services. Both the KCIOs and later higher echelon has been easy prey to these machinations of the politico-babu combine.
The PM, on more than one occasion, has committed that OROP would be granted. While defence services have full faith in the word of the PM, the then, part-time defence minister (Arun Jaitley) let out a missive. To a delegation of veterans he told that they better lower the demand. Obviously, Jaitley is not on the same page as his PM. He wanted to refer the case to a tribunal.
Attempts to flummox the political executive are afoot in that for one, the implementation of OROP is complicated, and two, it would open a Pandora’s box because all others would agitate for the same. The argument is totally untenable. Let civil services adopt the same service conditions, that is, same age for retirement and similar scope for promotions with attendant delay (leaving aside the X-factor) to qualify for adoption of the OROP concept.
The great injustice done to defence services needs early correction and the PM would do well to personally and urgently look into this.
(The writer, a former deputy chief of army staff, is a commentator on defence and security issues. The views expressed are personal.)
One Rank, One Pension: Is the bureaucracy back to the same old game of delay dilute and deny? - By Brig V Mahalingam (Retd)
December 2, 2014, 6:58 PM IST
The entire military veterans’ community which includes the war disabled and the widows are dismayed and feel betrayed at the inordinate delay in implementing the One Rank One Pension (OROP) by the government.
The Koshyari committee, a multi-party parliamentary committee recommended OROP in its report presented to the Parliament on December 19, 2011. After procrastinating over the report for more than 3 years, the erstwhile UPA government announced the grant of OROP on the floor of the Parliament as a part of the interim Budget presented on Feb 17, 2014.
Immediately thereafter, the then defence minister convened a meeting to discuss the modalities for the implementation of OROP. The meeting was attended among others by the minister of state for defence Jitendra Singh, the defence secretary RK Mathur, secretary ex-servicemen’s welfare Sangita Gairola, secretary defence finance Arunava Dutt, the three service vice chiefs and the adjutant generals or equivalents from the services headquarters.
A Press Information Bureau (Defence Wing) release issued after the meeting stated that the defence minister “assured the services that the government was fully committed to implement the One Rank, One Pension (OROP) policy and that required funds will be made available to ensure its implementation”. It further went on to define OROP thus:
“OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the armed forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancements in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners”. This definition is in conformity with the Supreme Court’s judgment in the famous Major General SVS Veins Vs Union of India case.
The defence minister had also during the meeting directed the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) to initiate immediate steps in consultation with the three services, ministry of defence finance and department of ESW to give effect to the decision. He had also emphasized that family pensioners and disability pensioners would be included.
The BJP government reaffirmed their commitment to OROP in their Budget 2014 – 15 presented at the Parliament on 10 July 2014 (paragraph 140). Prime Minister Modi too had promised OROP in his very first election rally besides echoing his resolve on the issue subsequently during his visits to various defence establishments.
Despite nine months having gone by, the bureaucracy is still sitting in audit of the Parliamentary Committee’s recommendations and the Prime Minister’s announcements and perhaps attempting to redefine OROP. If nine months are not good enough for an organisation to work out the details with a clear definition of what they ought to be doing, those in authority in the organisation have no business to continue in service.
It now appears that the CGDA has come out with a projection of 9000 crores as the additional burden on the exchequer to implement the OROP whereas the service headquarters have estimated a requirement of 5000 crores. The CGDA has not provided the details of their calculations to the Service Headquarters. The projection by the CGDA, the veterans’ community therefore believes is flawed and meant to mislead the defence minister. If the calculations are genuine, why keep it a secret ask the veterans. Even if the expenditure is as projected by the CGDA, is it too much of a price for the nation to pay to those who risk their life at the cost of their family’s welfare and their children’s future development at their old age?
Veterans also point to the alacrity with which the bureaucracy implemented the non-functional upgradation (NFU) to officers of organised group ‘A’ services. The report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission was submitted to finance minister P Chidambaram by Justice BN Srikrishna on March 24, 2008. The cabinet approved sixth pay commission recommendations with some modifications on August 14, 2008 and the NFU proposal was implemented on April 24, 2009 vide ministry of personnel, public grievances and pensions department of personnel and training 0M No.AB.14017/ 64/2008-Estt.(RR) dated 24.4.2009 barely 13 months after the report was submitted to the government by the commission.
It is an irony that while 100 % officers of the Organised Group ‘A’ Services are covered under the NFU and thus eligible to draw the salary of a Joint Secretary at a service of 19 years, only 0.8 % of the Defence Services Officers would be eligible for a similar treatment after 28 years of service. The system has been so engineered that it places 100% officers of the Organised Group ‘A’ services under the ambit of OROP. Where is the parity between the Civil and Military now, a plea under which the military was brought within the civil services pay and pension system? How can two streams of services with diverse service conditions and terms of retirement have the same pay and pension structure? Where has justice and fair play gone?
The Veterans point out that before the Government had made the announcement regarding implementation of OROP on 17 February 2014 in the Parliament, the financial effects of implementing the scheme would have been worked out and a green signal given to the proposal by the very same bureaucracy which is now sitting in judgment of the Government’s announcement in the Parliament and blocking its implementation. Is the Government being run by the political leadership or the bureaucracy?
Veterans allege that the bureaucracy acts as a stumbling block in every issue that has a positive impact on the soldiers even going to the extent of challenging court verdicts providing minimal financial benefits to Veterans, war disabled and widows in the Supreme Court. The government is prepared to spend money, time, and effort fighting cases even where the financial implications are insignificant but supporting the soldiering community is a total No No. The aim is to frustrate the community and make them run around lawyers and courts at their advanced age spending their valuable time and money fighting a legal battle with the mighty state.
It is time the Prime Minister sees the plot. Delay is an instrument which is exploited by the bureaucracy to deny people their right besides forcing people to pay a bribe to get their file moving. In this case it is a fundamental ethos of the bureaucracy to keep the soldiers begging for everything that they rightly deserve.
The Veterans are an aging community. Inordinate delay in implementing a long standing issue which could provide them with some relief at their old age only gives a feeling that those in the Government who have a moral responsibility to look after the soldiering community at their old age are merely waiting in anticipation for the aged to wither away as time passes. A large number passed away without seeing the Rank Pay arrears. Let that not happen in the case of OROP.
Author
V Mahalingam
Brigadier (retd) V Mahalingam, has held varying command and staff appointments in his 35 years of Army service. He specializes in security related matters and is a leadership trainer. His areas of interest include national security, defence and security forces, governance, and politics.
(Source- TOI Blog)
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Implementation of One Rank One Pension
One Rank One Pension (OROP) implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. This implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners, and also future enhancement in the rate of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.
This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar in Rajya Sabha today.
(Source- PIB)
DUE TO POSITIVE FEEDBACK POSTPONEMENT OF PROTEST MOVEMENT (03 TO 16 DEC 2014)
01 Dec 2014
Dear All,
Dear All,
Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar,Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha through
a letter dated 27 Nov 14 urged IESM to give some more time to the Govt for the
implementation of O R O P before recommencing the Protest Movement.
He has been in the forefront in getting the due justice to the
soldiers. I alongwith Gp Capt VK Gandhi, General Secretary had a meeting with
Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar at 0930AM today.
We discussed and understood the view point of each other. He
promised to arrange our meeting with the new RM at an early date. He has
also suggested, if required he would facilitate meeting with the PM.
We informed him that decision to recommence the Agitation was
taken only when no forward Movement had taken place since Apr 2014 when the DGL
prepared by the Service HQs based on approved definition was presented the then
RM. RM. Secondly our numerous
requests to PM & RM for a meeting, was not even acknowledged.
Since Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar has stated that he would
facilitate our meeting with the RM at an early date, IESM has decided to hold
in abeyance the planned Agitation. In view of the foregoing the scheduled
Relay Hunger Strike from 03 to 16 Dec 2014, Rally on 07 Dec 2014 and deposit of
medals stand postponed. Fresh date will be intimated later. We will
keep you all informed about the progress of negotiations.
• There will be no change in the
Approved definition of OROP.
• It will be granted w.e.f. 01 April 2014 as sanctioned earlier.
• It will be granted w.e.f. 01 April 2014 as sanctioned earlier.
With regards
Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman IESM
Mob: +919312404269, 0124-4110570
Email ID: satbirsm@gmail.com
Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)
Chairman IESM
Mob: +919312404269, 0124-4110570
Email ID: satbirsm@gmail.com
(Source- Vasundhara blog)
Monday, December 1, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)